The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-03-19

Creator limo created thing can change !
God, then nothing in the universe can
change him for besides created things,
there is nothing but God himself.
Surely, this is remarkable passage.
1t shows that none of the things men,
toned can change God and the last of
these contains the reason, namely, they
are created things; and the Creator is
above, and superior to them all. What
then is the conclusion ? 1t is, that God
loves us now, and will love us forever.
How ought this great truth to swell
our hearts with gratitude For, if
God loves us, and will never cease to
love US, he can never do us any harm
nay, more--he will never cease to bless
us; for love is not negative attribute,
being satisfied with doing no harm.
On the contrary, it is positive, and is
ever seeking the good Of its object.
This reasoning does not imply ex-
emption from punishment. Itdemands
its infiction, but utters it's protest
against an excess of it, which can do
no good, and which love forbids. There
is no way to evade the argument of the
apostle in the passage before US but
to claim that his language is confined
to Christians. 1t is acknowledged that
the first part of the passage refers to
Christians; for they only love Christ.
But there is an infinite difference be-
tween the love of Christians and the
love of God. If it could be proved that
the love of God is limited to those that
love him or that, loving all men for
while, he will cease to love them in the
future, the case would be different.
But either supposition is derogatory to
his character as God-an infinite and
changeless being. The passages are too
numerous and too plain to escape the
most careless reader, declaring his uni
versal goodness and love. Even his
chastisements are urged as proof Of
love. ''Whom he loveth he chasteneth,
and scourgeth every son whom he re-
ceiveth." To be without chastisement,
would be an evidence that we are not
regarded as SONS. But none are with
out; but all are partakers Of these sal
utary infections. See Heb. 18th chapter.
have often marveled that this won
derful passage from Paul's writings
has not been more generally relied upon
to prove our distinguishing doctrine
Our doctrine is the only one reconcila-
BILE with the unchanging love of God.
This allows his love free scope, both
negatively and positively-doing us no
harm, but promoting our highest good,
even beyond our most sanguine hopes.
There is a clause at the end of the
foregoing passage that has not been
sufficiently considered. "The love of
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -
These words show that the love of God
for us is had in view, and not our love
for him. The love of God for men was
in Christ Jesus. But in no proper
sense can this be affirmed of our love
for God. Besides, is it probable that
Paul would repeat what is essentially
the same thing in the same passage :?
Would he name the things that cannot
separate our love from Christ; and fol-
low this list by another, denoting the
agencies that cannot separate our love
from Godp Singular proceeding
Then we may well ask, Why should
it require one set of agencies to separ-
ate us from the love of Christ, and an
other to separate us from the love of
God, if the same love is intended in
both cases? And why should the first
be put into the form of questions, and
the last into different form ? With
the view we have taken, each list of
separating agencies is adapted to the
work suggested, and differs from the
other, as it should while, with the
other view, these agencies would nat
urally be the same in both cases, and
presented in the same interrogatory
| form.
In view Of the above considerations,
it would seem that no one, except for
sectarian and obvious reasons, would
take any other view of this passage
than that which we have presented in
this article.